Pages

Tuesday, 4 September 2012

A newsman's take on Singapore journalism and shifting OB markers

Sep 02, 2012Cheong Yip Seng, former editor of The Straits Times and editor-in-chief of the English and Malay Newspaper Division of Singapore Press Holdings, has a book due out later this year called OB Markers: My Straits Times Story. In an interview with Stephanie Garcia of The New Asia Media, he tells how the space for doing journalism in Singapore has changed, keeping pace with the political environment.

Stephanie Garcia: What are "OB markers" and how did they affect your work during your 43 years at The Straits Times?

Cheong Yip Seng: OB markers, or out-of-bounds markers, is a term used in golf to indicate boundaries on the golf course your ball must not stray beyond without incurring a penalty. In Singapore, it is also commonly used to lay out the limits to the freedom of expression, some of them mandated by law. Singapore's political leaders are convinced that OB markers are necessary for effective governance. Hence, they have strong regulatory powers over the media. Newspapers, for instance, have to apply annually to renew their publishing licence, a law introduced during British colonial days.

The fairways are narrowest for debate on race and religion. Journalists, and the general public, accept the need for restraint. Indeed, it is against the law for anyone, layman or religious leader, to vilify another religion. Singaporeans suffered grievously from racial riots in the 1960s, and want no repeat of such deadly violence.

Otherwise, the fairways are broad enough to practise purposeful, credible journalism. However, disputes over how broad the fairways should be are a permanent bone of contention. The reason is that the OB markers are not fixed, and shift constantly to keep pace with the changing political environment. With every passing year, and the widespread use of the Internet, public pressure grows for more political space, and more critical coverage. Journalists have to respond to these demands, and are forced to constantly test the boundaries.

Editors have to play gatekeeper, negotiate the OB markers, and find the right balance between what journalists feel is acceptable coverage and what the Government sees as legitimate restraint.

A major challenge for me was dealing with the introduction of controversial policies. Invariably, they attracted strong public reaction before and during implementation. Policy makers believed successful implementation would bring Singapore long-term benefits. But there would be short-term pain for many people.

The challenge for us was accurate, balanced presentation of fact without neglecting public opinion, which posed risks to eroding public support for the policies.

Often disputes would arise over whether coverage helped or hindered policy implementation.

In the process, we had to deal with accusations that we had breached the OB markers.

Today, I believe that the fairways have broadened and will continue to, however stringent the regulatory regime may be on paper.Your view is that media systems operate differently in each country based on needs from their history as a nation. What in Singapore's history requires the media system it has?

When Singapore became independent in 1965, it was only a tiny speck on the map. It was largely a resource-poor trading port without enough work for a population with one of the world's highest birth rates at the time. It is located in a tough neighbourhood with neighbours that were more hostile than friendly in the early years of independence.

Internally, it had to deal with a powerful left-wing opposition with considerable influence over many trades unions. Industrial strife was common. It had inherited from the British an inadequate education system that did not provide every child with a place in school, and a severe housing shortage. Its financial resources were also meagre.

Many people thought multi- racial Singapore could not survive. Therefore, its political leadership had an acute sense of vulnerability, and was firm in its view that only with strong government, and minimal dissent, could it overcome the considerable odds. It believed in tough love.

It also believed that the interests of the press had to be subordinate to what it deemed to be the interests of the nation. It believed Western-style journalism hampered, rather than helped, economic development, making policy implementation more difficult than it would otherwise be. The medicine might have been too bitter for the more liberal-minded, but strongman rule had the support of the vast majority of the citizens.

In what ways did you see The Straits Times change and evolve while you were there?

When I started, management was in largely British hands. The paper's orientation was British. Independence changed all of that. Singapore editors' focus was on Singapore; above all, on economic development. But from the start, we had to deal with the OB markers. The fairways were very narrow at the beginning. But as Singapore prospered, and fears that it could not survive receded, the fairways broadened. The Government increasingly tolerated more critical coverage.

And with Singaporean control of management, the paper invested a great deal more in manpower to raise editorial quality. We were fortunate that Singapore took off, and years of high economic performance gave us the financial resources to upgrade the newsroom. We could afford to build an extensive network of correspondents across Asia, so we could better tell the Asian story. We could also afford to invest heavily in wider and deeper local coverage.

This was the most significant development for the paper. With spectacular economic growth, ample financial resources were available to invest in the paper. The linkage between the well-being of the paper and the country's economic performance was obvious. It made sense for the paper to support policies that promoted strong growth.

Is it unrealistic for the Government to continue to restrict the press in the new Internet Age?

The Internet Age will broaden the fairways. The Singapore Government has no choice but to learn to govern in this noisier, more robust environment. I believe they are realists, and will adapt, and accept more diversity of opinion. They will calibrate their response and feel their way forward, taking care that in broadening the fairways, a free-wheeling Western-style press will not be the outcome.

But I do not think they will fundamentally change their basic thinking on media management. They will not concede their right to the last word in any debate on fundamental policies.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew believed it was necessary to have control over the media to govern effectively. Do you really think this is true?

I believe that without control, his policies would have been much harder to implement. He would have had to give greater weight to popular opinion. Singapore would have probably taken much longer to develop, and to reach First World status.

Of course, the problem is what should be an appropriate degree of control. Those who believe that it could have been less tight could well be right. But who knows?

Where do you see The Straits Times in 20 years, considering changes in technology and the political climate?

Twenty years is a very long time! More so when the world is moving at Internet speed. It is foolhardy to predict what will happen. But it would probably be safe to bet that rapid advances in technology will change our lives, and impact our reading habits. How that will eventually affect the media's business model is hard to say.

But one thing I think will not change is this: News will continue to be the lifeblood, the lubricant of the modern economy. No one can do without it.

If The Straits Times continues to provide information worth paying for, it will continue to be read. If politics in Singapore becomes more pluralistic, the paper will play an even more important role in the national discourse. In this noisier environment, it can be a platform for calm debate on national issues.

How do you envision the foreseeable future of politics in Singapore? How would a change in government, such as a multi- party system, affect The Straits Times?

If present trends continue, the multi-racial electorate will be even more diversified, according to income, education, nationality, age, and perhaps even gender. It would probably be even harder to govern. Would this lead to a change of government or a multi-party system? It is hard to say. A great deal depends on how effectively the ruling party occupies the middle ground. It depends on how the opposition parties play their cards. Most importantly, it depends on what the voters want.

The Straits Times will have to cater to this more diversified readership, both online and offline. I do not believe it will no longer need to worry about OB markers. I believe whichever political party is in charge will continue to have them, though it could well have to move the boundaries to suit the changed political circumstances.

I also do not expect much change to the basic features of the regulatory regime, like licensing and the ban on foreign ownership of the media.

The writer is with The New Asia Media, a student-driven online publication of Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles that was founded by US journalist Tom Plate, the university's Distinguished Scholar of Asia and Pacific Studies.

Why we resist the ideologues

There are... liberal democracies where you can have an "Amos Yee" type freedom.

There are also very sad places where there is little freedom or security, and life is very hard.

And there are a few places where there is quite a lot of chaos and life is uncertain.

Then there are very few places where you can be reasonably civilised and have sufficient security and responsible freedom to have a good life.

Singapore is one such Oasis of sensibleness... we are an Oasis of order, competence, efficiency, and reasonableness in an otherwise chaotic unreasonable, incompetent WORLD. Not just the region.

If Singapore becomes a copy of a Western Liberal Democracy with all the inherent inefficiencies, silliness, drama, and chaos, it would be a very sad thing...

If Singapore breaks down and devolves into a corrupt, ineffective, unfocused, shambling chaotic third world country, it would also be a very sad thing.

There is only one place where you can find Singapore's straightforwardness, integrity, efficiency, competence, order... And that is here, in Singapore.

If we lose this, whether because we lean to much to the left, or whether we let ourselves sink into mediocrity through complacency or a sense of destiny, or divine right, it will be gone.

...so that is why we resist the ideologues.

Trees

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in.”

Reminder

“There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.” - Ernest Hemingway

The Tao of Government

"Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government, empties their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthen their bones."

"He constantly (tries to) keep them without knowledge, and without desire, and where there are those who have knowledge, to keep them from presuming to act (on it). When there is this abstinence from action, good order is universal."